Why Wikipedia is Not a Reliable Source for Facts
The co-founder, Jimmy Wales, describes Wikipedia as "an effort to create and distribute a multilingual free encyclopedia of the highest quality to every single person on the planet in his or her own language." Wikipedia exists to bring knowledge to everyone who seeks it".
Clearly Wikipedia and it's plethora of contributors are sincere and well-meaning, however characterizing all contibuted information as factual is unrealistic and in many cases patently false. Perhaps it would be more apt for Mr. Wales to describe Wikipedia as a great encyclopedia of an accumulation of biased opinions. For that, it is most definitely of the highest quality.
A good example of how Wikipedia is misused quite often appears on LiveLeak, a website where you will find videos on politics, religion and other controversial and thought provoking topics. Many of the videos on one or more of those subjects will from time to time elicit a counter-comment that is rife with allegations and/or accusations that has been referenced from content found on Wikipedia. When further researched using a plethora of well-established reliable sources, the information was found to be conveniently fabricated.
Considering that anyone with an ideological axe to grind and a smattering of writing ability can spin falsehoods on Wikipedia without challenge from the site's editors, clearly it should not be referenced as a valid source for factual information.
Published by Jim Green
- How to Stay Out of Spyware Trouble on the Internet Some of the more practical techniques I've used to steer clear of the technical loopholes that allow users to be taken advantage of on the internet.
- What Services and Resources Can Be Found on the Internet? The Internet has become one of the biggest worldwide systems for sending and receiving information. Even though even knows about the Internet you would be surprised to know that many people are still very unaware of h...
-
Why Mozilla Firefox is the Best Internet Browser Out Today
Why Mozilla Firefox knocks other browsers - especially Internet Explorer - clear out of the water.
- Internet... BEWARE! (Part 1) Crooks operating online. They out to steal your money. There is no control whatsoever on the internet.
- The Six Sins of the Wikipedia The Wikipedia poses such low barriers to entry (anyone can edit any number of its articles) that it is already attracting masses of teenagers as "contributors" and "editors", not to mention the less savory flotsam and...
- Internet Search Inquiries
- Is the Internet Still a Resource for Information?
- How to Succeed with Internet Marketing
- TCP/IP In-Depth Description (Transmission Control Protocol / Internet Protocol)
- Prudential California Realty Adding Internet "Zip"
- Just What is the Internet?
- Beware of Fraud in Internet Cafes When Traveling
|
|
- Google spies on iPhone users: Should the feds clamp down? (The Week)
- The rise of child sex-change treatments (The Week)
- U.S. Army Earns Afghan Ire by Burning Qurans (ContributorNetwork)
- America's Taser problem: 8 unfortunate Tasing incidents (The Week)
- The problem with political bloviating on China (The Week)
39 Comments
Post a CommentBrandon - Thanks for your comment and insight. Because of the massive amount of articles that are written on virtually every kind of topic, there is simply no way that Wikipedia's admin. team can verify them and therein lies the site's Achilles Heel. There are articles on many topics that are objective such as types of kitchen knives, that can't be anything but objective. But anything written about religion, historical facts, politics, etc., is subject to opinion and bias.
Wikipedia is not reliable. Lots of times a certain administrator(always a regular joe working from home)will hijack an article and allow only one side of the story to be heard. They will also only allow the one-sided article to be backed up with the sources that only tell the side they agree with and not any articles that tells the other side. I was in a fight with one jerk administrator on one article not too long ago. Don't trust Wikipedia is all I can say. Some articles you can tell right off are wrong, but they leave them up anyway.
Wikipedia is as you say an unreliable and biased reference source and one I do not go too due to my tutors advising it is not accurate and as you say biased and often misinformed rather than truth informed.
It is no longer an internet aspect I or my associates refer too.
Truth is found elsewhere,
While I agree that it should not be used as a resource when doing academic research, it is foolish to assume that it is normally filled with false information. If statements have citations next to them, they should have some credibility.
I would like to add that ALL sources with regards to 'Cherie Nutting' and 'Bachir Attars' biographies on the Wikipedia were backed up by completely reliable sources and all work was from major publications which could be easily checked. In fact with regards to Nutting's biography the
author Jeffrey Miller wrote to Joe Daley and the Wikipedia team in order to
confirm that Cherie Nutting
had indeed
taken the photograph of the author Paul Bowles for the book cover of Bowles' collected letters (entitled "In Touch")
published by Farrar, Strauss & Giroux.
Robert Palmer's daughter Augusta, also wrote to let the Wikipedia team know that the statements about Bachir Attar and our contributions to her film about her late father were correct. The BBC film "The Rolling Stones in Morocco" with Bachir Attar 1989 was continually deleted from both our biographies, as well as our work in the Bowles film "The Sheltering Sky" with Ber
Biographies on Cherie Nutting and Bachir Attar of The Master Musicians of Jajouka.
For years these two bios were continuously vandalized and the information was inaccurate and incomplete.I continually asked for help with this from the Wik team.I am not very good on the internet and explained this.I was told by a man named Joe Daley to make the corrections myself as they were busy volunteers.I had trouble entering from my email and so did so with Bachir Attar's name and I told the Wik team about this.Suddenly I was erased for deleting the false statement that Bachir Attar drank Vodka, which someone kept placing in his resume and I added some completely accurate and authorized information on our resumes.I was deleted for "lying".I was able to support the info with letters and contracts and publications yet I am still deleted after wasting many weeks of time trying to rectify this.I really think that the Wik team does not know what it is doing and I do hope that a bet
Biographies on Cherie Nutting and Bachir Attar of The Master Musicians of Jajouka.
For years these two bios were continuously vandalized and the information was inaccurate and incomplete.I continually asked for help with this from the Wik team.I am not very good on the internet and explained this.I was told by a man named Joe Daley to make the corrections myself as they were busy volunteers.I had trouble entering from my email and so did so with Bachir Attar's name and I told the Wik team about this.Suddenly I was erased for deleting the false statement that Bachir Attar drank Vodka, which someone kept placing in his resume and I added some completely accurate and authorized information on our resumes.I was deleted for "lying".I was able to support the info with letters and contracts and publications yet I am still deleted after wasting many weeks of time trying to rectify this.I really think that the Wik team does not know what it is doing and I do hope that a bet
Is not any "Valid" source technically in some way biased? For example any news story or article is in some way biased. You yourself are biased towards the information contributed to Wikipedia. Most pages on Wikipedia cite sources right on the bottom. Just like "any" person writing any research article would do. No matter what subject you look up somewhere, the reason there is research on it and information about it, Is because someone was passionate about that particular subject. That passion is going to make that particular person biased towards that particular research. I am always for a person learning and researching on their own, but I feel Wikipedia to be an excellent source to “start†from. Not matter what you are researching; you would never get all your information from one place anyways.
@Tom
99% of all articles are never checked by anyone and the few highly frequented articles are checked by other amateurs with no expert knowledge whatsoever.
Wikipedia is nothing more than an accumulation of gossip disguised as facts. It is much better to skip wikipedia in the first place and go directly to the sources.
I posted earlier with some points about Wikipedia. Jim, thank you for your article, it has generated a great conversation. I agree very much with your idea to use the sources of Wikipedia.